"I've always found it odd that we get so exercised about the in-or-out question, yet show little interest in the precise terms and conditions", says Hannan, then offering us one hour and nine minutes of unexpurgated David Campbell Bannerman and his "EEA-lite".

Whether it is a reflection of Bannerman's film, or Hannan's readers, is hard to say, but the 1,300-plus comments rather prove his point. At a rough count, I would reckon that less than one percent actually address the issues raised by the film, or even tangentially deal with Hannan's points.

Unfortunately, this rather accords with our general experience – endless discussion about
why we should leave, but next to nothing about how, or the shape of a post-Brexit settlement. And even then, a goodly proportion of those who do discuss leaving are transfixed by the "magic wand" option of repealing the ECA.

One of these days, it might dawn on the anti-EU community that the "how" is equally as important and the "why", and then we might make some progress. However, if all people had to rely on were Mr Bannerman's ideas, then one would not be terribly surprised if they remained indifferent to what was on offer.

The oddest thing though is Mr Hannan's suggestion that we can call the exit plan "renegotiation or EFTA". Or, he says, "we can call it Brexit or EEA-lite, we can call it associate status or privileged partnership or Mordecai Ali Van Allen O'Shea". "Call it by whatever name you will, wouldn't it leave everyone happier?" he adds. 

Does this man truly think that "renegotiation" is the same thing as "Brexit", or that EFTA/EEA membership compares with Bannerman's "EEA lite"? One trusts that the IEA judging panel know the difference, or I'm really in trouble.